So, why would there be so many Semitic language idioms in the New Testament writings if they were written to Greek speaking people? I think that's what a previous post you mocked was trying to say. You seem very desperate to prove us wrong but you are failing in your quest. I'm not attempting to disprove Greek primacy right now, I am refuting your attempt to refute us. I would say that we have dome quite well!

I just got one Question. Why are we even giving this guy a time of day? He DOES NOT believe in a PRESERVED Greek Text. NO Western Christian has ever read the Greek text he uses before Mr. Panin came along. Sorry, the guy who uses an INVENTED Greek Text (even if you want to say "restored' does NOT have any leg to stand on to call a nearly 2,000 year old NT text from ANY language corrupted. If you want to stick to Greek Primacy, do so by dealing with actual GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.. Using Mathematical voodoo isn't Scholarship. Never has been and never will be..

Matthew Wrote:I just got one Question. Why are we even giving this guy a time of day? He DOES NOT believe in a PRESERVED Greek Text. NO Western Christian has ever read the Greek text he uses before Mr. Panin came along. Sorry, the guy who uses an INVENTED Greek Text (even if you want to say "restored' does NOT have any leg to stand on to call a nearly 2,000 year old NT text from ANY language corrupted. If you want to stick to Greek Primacy, do so by dealing with actual GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.. Using Mathematical voodoo isn't Scholarship. Never has been and never will be..

Shalom u'varacha,

Matityahu ben Avraham

That's precisely why I stopped participating in this thread. I've left it up as long as I have purely for the humor value. People like this merely make our point for us, only they usually don't realize it.

I have been asked by another person where they could validate the statement that the Aramaic word can mean both "to Burn" or "to Boast" from a published reference source, and I'm not sure which one would show it with that detail in it. Do you know of one? They do not just want to take our word on it.

You had said "The Aramaic root dqycan, and does indeed, mean "to burn"......HOWEVER, it can also mean "to boast."

I have been asked by another person where they could validate the statement that the Aramaic word can mean both "to Burn" or "to Boast" from a published reference source, and I'm not sure which one would show it with that detail in it. Do you know of one? They do not just want to take our word on it.

You had said "The Aramaic root dqycan, and does indeed, mean "to burn"......HOWEVER, it can also mean "to boast."

Shamasha Paul, they are doubting that "ardent, enthusiastic, eager, zealous, passionate, etc," means the same as "to boast" or "to glory". I told them to come here and say why they think so. I think I see how they can be thought to carry the same idea.

Shlama:
It's time to put this thread to rest. You are certainly entitled to your opinion god-particle but I don't want to see this turn into a situation which has no logical conclusion solution. The thread has come to the point where it has to be wound down. Remember we are all brethren seeking the truth and all must be respected.
Let's call it a day and keep the peace.

We've also given you logical replies. None of us have claimed that Greek is defiled as a language, Andrew Gabriel Roth is the only one I can't think of that does. If the Greek New Testament is the original, that's fine, but I am convinced that the Peshitta is the original. Quit being so arrogant and judgmental.

Saul of Tarsus, was of the Diaspora, a Roman citizen, born in a Greek speaking city of the Gentiles...a Hellenist by any standard, and so according to his thinking, Saul/Paul must then have spoken no Aramaic...only Greek. But, we know that isn't true at all, so why must it be true of anyone of the Jews born abroad? His "logic" fails.

I don't say that Saul/Paul didn't speak Greek, it seems clear that he did, but, he also spoke fluent Aramaic, and most likely the old Hebrew as well, and maybe some Latin too.

When we study the actual texts, they show us many evidences that indicate the Letters were all written 1st in Aramaic, then at once translated into Greek.

I don't have a problem understanding that a Jewish man who spoke Aramaic, probably his primary language, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, would use his natural mother tongue to write his Letters in, and then either dictate them to a translator, or have them translated into Greek and or Latin for those who only understood those languages.

It would seem more odd to have them written only in Greek and or Latin, then have them translated into Paul's usual language, Aramaic, so the Aramaic Christians could read them, or hear them read aloud.

And this idea that no Jew outside of Israel could speak Aramaic, is just plain nonsense. Saul/Paul did, and I'm sure Timothy did as well...as would most Jews who were devout and who spent any time in Israel during the feasts a number of times a year, as God instructed them to do.

Again...all he brings is mere speculation, and we can speculate all day as well...but, the real proof is found in the Text itself. I say get to know it, and see what we have seen, which contradicts the conventional "wisdom".

"Now as for Hebrew, prior to Abram being called out of Ur by YHWH, it was the language of an ?unholy? and pagan people. I say Pagan, because anyone outside of a covenantal relationship with YHWH is called such. Abram became holy (sanctified) when YHWH set him apart to make from him a people all his own. So, do you think the Old Testament was written in Hebrew because the language was holy and YHWH?s choice from heaven, or because that was the language spoken by the people YHWH called (Israel), and subsequently, the language of their offspring?

YHWH has no need of a written language except that man cannot receive special revelation from him without it. Therefore, he communicates to us through written language (in addition to creation), and when he does, he uses the language of the recipient. Otherwise, had Israel not already known Hebrew, they and all their offspring would have had to learn a uniquely new, previously non-existant language created just for the OT, before they could understand what YHWH was saying. But of course, simple reason, logic and a little history (not to mention common sense) tell us this is not the case."

my response :

Lets go back to Noah. What language did he speak. I say it is much like the case with Abram in his earlier day. The giants had caused men to stack the iniquity so high that surely Adam's language had been lost by Naoh's day. And you have brought up and interesting question concerning language. Surely as the Father created mankind both male and female (Ch.1) then clearly in chapter two it says that when he made man, He also made A MAN and breathed in him his spirit making him living, so then, it would be evident that this Set-Apart man was indeed set apart in every way, whose, language then becomes the question. Remeber YHWH tells him to name everything. Thats would seem indicate a hint. Noah comes along and the earth is filled with the enemy who has attacked The Set Apart EVERYTHING and in EVERY way. Now to Abram...yes I agree the set apart language is lost, however, if we do not approach truth with pure intent, we will not see the truth, and therefore have no truth. I believe that it is highly possible that Aramaic could be the lost Hebrew or a dialect of it and Ill tell you why:

Scripture. Its that simple. Not just a part of The Scripture rather the whole of it. Yeshua said his words would never die. Aramaic was spoken by The Messiah!! This means that HE chose the who what when where why how of ALL that He does and it includes language. Now, Aramaic being highly descriptive, and used by Him to convey what is impossible for man to convey alone, then I say He meant every definition to every word He spoke as He spoke eternally. Which stands to reason why he chose Aramaic. And now at the end of time we have access to it again (A Spirit-Love filled shout out to AGR and TEAM-THANK YOU!! You all, are indeed here for such a time as this, thank you!)

I just want to add that I have come across a distinct difference between the KJV (and the rest) and the AENT. Profound differences actually. REVELATION 22:16 And I just want to say that there are people out there without the AENT or at least a concordance, that are saying Jesus is Lucifer. Here is what I say about that because it does have something to do with language:

Yes, the Messiah is stating pedigree and that all is His even before Lucifer tried taking it, but Yeshua is also revealing His glory in this statement. The KJV is but partially correct and therefore it is misleading to those without the AENT or at least a Concordance. Not only does the primacy lie with the Aramaic (translated directly to English), but the Greek (KJV NT) is also corrupt with pagan doctrine. There are over 600 mistranslations in the NT some of which were strategically implanted (some versus came from thin air) to support pagan ideology, ie: The trinity doctrine and cross and Sunday, etc. In essence AND according to the AENT, the Messiah is saying, "behold I AM and I make all things new." In this He reveals His Glory and Victory. As the KJV says "I Je-sus...am the bright and morning star." (no caps) The NIV says, " I Jesus...the bright Morning Star." (caps); ESV says, "I, Jesus...the bright morning star." None of these translations from Greek are specific nor are they accurately depicting His message. The AENT says, "I Y'shua...am like the splendid star of the morning." Again this is a glimpse into what/who He is and how he is victorious. He maketh all things new, renewing man and the universe. He is also stepping into or taking on and showing His role, His Title as The Word of YHWH.

With all this in mind, we can see that Lucifer immediately went to work on Cain, even replacing the language he had known. In order to trade with those 'in the world', Cain would have to. If we also study the history of the Canaanites and Phoenicians, we can see the exact pattern that Lucifer has used since the fall of man, to bring down the connection between YHWH and man (us).

I have come across important information(s) and am working on compiling everything for the hopes of a book that will include this very topic.

To godparticle; I say that someone as learned as you allude to be and has read as much as you, and goes off facts (which are according to man) not truth, and also your very name on this website as well as your eagerness to push Greek (a pagan defiled tongue as they are pagan -there's a fact for you) down the world's throat ALL make you reek of stinky Jesuit, and are incapable of coming to TRUTH (who is our Creator-Savior-Redeemer) because you've stumbled (spiritually) on facts. But I love you anyway. Are you a Jesuit seeking to create chaos?? Or do you believe truth, believe; meaning to trust and obey the Truth? You said you wanted to hear from men of "God" and I wonder if you are even capable? What do you want gp?